I must admit that this is actually a good poll for Ayotte considering that it also shows Clinton annihilating her Republican opponents and it's been conducted right after the whole SCOTUS controversy. Hmmm, this race is still leans D in my book, though. Ayotte will have a hard time getting more than 48% of the vote.

I must admit that this is actually a good poll for Ayotte considering that it also shows Clinton annihilating her Republican opponents and it's been conducted right after the whole SCOTUS controversy. Hmmm, this race is still leans D in my book, though. Ayotte will have a hard time getting more than 48% of the vote.

The GOP will likely get away with keeping the seat vacant for a year without much if any consequences, but you're dreaming if you think they can get away with it for 5. Not only because of the fact that it is ridiculous on its face, but because pretty much everyone has overtly said "the next president should fill the vacancy." There's no room to maneuver around that, and the media massacre would be endless. It would be like if they never re-opened the government in 2013.

The GOP will likely get away with keeping the seat vacant for a year without much if any consequences, but you're dreaming if you think they can get away with it for 5. Not only because of the fact that it is ridiculous on its face, but because pretty much everyone has overtly said "the next president should fill the vacancy." There's no room to maneuver around that, and the media massacre would be endless. It would be like if they never re-opened the government in 2013.

When something's gone on for a year, it's the new normal. It'll quite easily go on for 5, especially after the significant boost in our ranks we will get in January 2019. Maybe it'll even be significant enough the media will realize our constituency likes the gridlock, though they've failed to grasp that to date.

The GOP will likely get away with keeping the seat vacant for a year without much if any consequences, but you're dreaming if you think they can get away with it for 5. Not only because of the fact that it is ridiculous on its face, but because pretty much everyone has overtly said "the next president should fill the vacancy." There's no room to maneuver around that, and the media massacre would be endless. It would be like if they never re-opened the government in 2013.

When something's gone on for a year, it's the new normal. It'll quite easily go on for 5, especially after the significant boost in our ranks we will get in January 2019. Maybe it'll even be significant enough the media will realize our constituency likes the gridlock, though they've failed to grasp that to date.

When will you finally fill the seat? Yes, Ginsburg will get out soon enough, but still, wouldn't you rather have a reliable fifth vote for conservatism rather than rely on Kennedy? If the sixty-vote rule is holding things up, then just abolish it for the scalia/ginsburg replacement votes and bring it back immediately afterward.

Edit: And don't assume Hillary's going to win. Just ask Dukakis, McCain, and Romney about the great reliability of early GE Polls. And if she does, doesn't that mean America wants a liberal (or at least moderate) regime?

The GOP will likely get away with keeping the seat vacant for a year without much if any consequences, but you're dreaming if you think they can get away with it for 5. Not only because of the fact that it is ridiculous on its face, but because pretty much everyone has overtly said "the next president should fill the vacancy." There's no room to maneuver around that, and the media massacre would be endless. It would be like if they never re-opened the government in 2013.

When something's gone on for a year, it's the new normal. It'll quite easily go on for 5, especially after the significant boost in our ranks we will get in January 2019. Maybe it'll even be significant enough the media will realize our constituency likes the gridlock, though they've failed to grasp that to date.

When will you finally fill the seat? Yes, Ginsburg will get out soon enough, but still, wouldn't you rather have a reliable fifth vote for conservatism rather than rely on Kennedy? If the sixty-vote rule is holding things up, then just abolish it for the scalia/ginsburg replacement votes and bring it back immediately afterward.

The seat (and any other vacancies that come up) will most likely only be filled when the President and the Senate majority are from the same party. There is perhaps some possibility for leeway if the numbers at 51-49 or something, or if a President nominates someone they are not in ideological agreement with (like Nixon nominating Blackmun, or Bush nominating Souter), but these scenarios are not particularly likely. (To clarify, getting past a 51-49 majority is unlikely, not that majority coming about).

At the moment, it seems that there is some chance of the President and Senate majority being from the same party in January 2017, but that this is unlikely; and if this does not take place, it seems there will be no correspondence for many years.

The GOP will likely get away with keeping the seat vacant for a year without much if any consequences, but you're dreaming if you think they can get away with it for 5. Not only because of the fact that it is ridiculous on its face, but because pretty much everyone has overtly said "the next president should fill the vacancy." There's no room to maneuver around that, and the media massacre would be endless. It would be like if they never re-opened the government in 2013.

When something's gone on for a year, it's the new normal. It'll quite easily go on for 5, especially after the significant boost in our ranks we will get in January 2019. Maybe it'll even be significant enough the media will realize our constituency likes the gridlock, though they've failed to grasp that to date.

When will you finally fill the seat? Yes, Ginsburg will get out soon enough, but still, wouldn't you rather have a reliable fifth vote for conservatism rather than rely on Kennedy? If the sixty-vote rule is holding things up, then just abolish it for the scalia/ginsburg replacement votes and bring it back immediately afterward.

The seat (and any other vacancies that come up) will most likely only be filled when the President and the Senate majority are from the same party. There is perhaps some possibility for leeway if the numbers at 51-49 or something, or if a President nominates someone they are not in ideological agreement with (like Nixon nominating Blackmun, or Bush nominating Souter), but these scenarios are not particularly likely. (To clarify, getting past a 51-49 majority is unlikely, not that majority coming about).

At the moment, it seems that there is some chance of the President and Senate majority being from the same party in January 2017, but that this is unlikely; and if this does not take place, it seems there will be no correspondence for many years.

Edit: And don't assume Hillary's going to win. Just ask Dukakis, McCain, and Romney about the great reliability of early GE Polls. And if she does, doesn't that mean America wants a liberal (or at least moderate) regime, including in the SCOTUS?

I'm speaking of likely results when I talk about Hillary results. Obviously, it is by no means certain, but you must admit Hillary is structurally much stronger now than Dukakis, McCain, and Romney were at the equivalent moment in their campaigns.

Yep, of course Ayotte being up 4 against a known opponent in a D+1 state means that she's the underdog, while Kirk being down 6 against a relatively unknown opponent in a D+8 state means that he's favored. Totally makes sense.

Yep, of course Ayotte being up 4 against a known opponent in a D+1 state means that she's the underdog, while Kirk being down 6 against a relatively unknown opponent in a D+8 state means that he's favored. Totally makes sense.

Not saying Kirk is favored, just that it's a Tossup. And yes, it does make sense. Climbing Maggie won't be able to run sexist ads this time like she did against Havenstein and Lamontagne, but she will still pander to women voters. Ayotte needs at least 45% of angry women to win this race. That's almost impossible for her to achieve. 47% of NH residents would vote for a virus with a D next to its name, it's one of the most inelastic states in the country. Being a woman doesn't get you elected in Illinois, on the other hand.

Yep, of course Ayotte being up 4 against a known opponent in a D+1 state means that she's the underdog, while Kirk being down 6 against a relatively unknown opponent in a D+8 state means that he's favored. Totally makes sense.

Not saying Kirk is favored, just that it's a Tossup. And yes, it does make sense. Climbing Maggie won't be able to run sexist ads this time like she did against Havenstein and Lamontagne, but she will still pander to women voters. Ayotte needs at least 45% of angry women to win this race. That's almost impossible for her to achieve. 47% of NH residents would vote for a virus with a D next to its name, it's one of the most inelastic states in the country. Being a woman doesn't get you elected in Illinois, on the other hand.

Being a Democrat does, as long as it's not a wave year for Republicans, where Republicans can beat damaged Democrats by narrow margins. Kirk was very lucky in 2010. He could be lucky again in 2016, but saying that he's got 50/50 odds is being far too generous, IMO. Not going to address the absurd NH nonsense.

Yep, of course Ayotte being up 4 against a known opponent in a D+1 state means that she's the underdog, while Kirk being down 6 against a relatively unknown opponent in a D+8 state means that he's favored. Totally makes sense.

Not saying Kirk is favored, just that it's a Tossup. And yes, it does make sense. Climbing Maggie won't be able to run sexist ads this time like she did against Havenstein and Lamontagne, but she will still pander to women voters. Ayotte needs at least 45% of angry women to win this race. That's almost impossible for her to achieve. 47% of NH residents would vote for a virus with a D next to its name, it's one of the most inelastic states in the country. Being a woman doesn't get you elected in Illinois, on the other hand.

Being a Democrat does, as long as it's not a wave year for Republicans, where Republicans can beat damaged Democrats by narrow margins. Kirk was very lucky in 2010. He could be lucky again in 2016, but saying that he's got 50/50 odds is being far too generous, IMO. Not going to address the absurd NH nonsense.